Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. MILLER, KAPLAN, ARASE & CO, LLP, 15-cv-01728-MMC. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160826b34 Visitors: 19
Filed: Aug. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 25, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFERRED PORTION OF PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF Re: Dkt. No. 150 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court is the deferred portion of plaintiff's "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal," filed August 5, 2016. By order filed August 12, 2016, the Court deferred ruling on the requested sealing of Exhibits 40, 41 and 45 to the Supplemental Declaration of Drew A. Robertson, as well as pag
More

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFERRED PORTION OF PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF

Re: Dkt. No. 150

Before the Court is the deferred portion of plaintiff's "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal," filed August 5, 2016. By order filed August 12, 2016, the Court deferred ruling on the requested sealing of Exhibits 40, 41 and 45 to the Supplemental Declaration of Drew A. Robertson, as well as pages 235, 240 and 349-365 of Exhibit 53 to the Supplemental Declaration of Drew A. Robertson. In so doing, the Court found the showing made by plaintiff, the designating party, was insufficient, and afforded plaintiff leave to file, no later than August 19, 2016, a supplemental declaration to establish what portions, if any, of said exhibits are confidential and not previously filed in the public record. On August 19, 2016, plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration, which declaration addresses only the propriety of filing under seal portions of Exhibit 40. Having read and considered the supplemental declaration, the Court hereby rules as follows:

1. To the extent plaintiff's administrative motion seeks leave to file under seal Exhibits 41 and 45, as well as pages 235, 240 and 349-365 of Exhibit 53, the motion is hereby DENIED, as plaintiff, the designating party, has not addressed in its supplemental declaration the propriety of filing under seal any such exhibit or portion thereof.

Plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file said exhibits and pages in the public record, no later than seven days after the date of this order, the entirety of Exhibits 41, 45 and 53. See Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(2).

2. To the extent plaintiff's administrative motion seeks leave to file under seal the entirety of Exhibit 40, the motion is hereby DENIED, as plaintiff, in its supplemental declaration, no longer asserts the entirety thereof is properly filed under seal, and neither defendant nor non-party SanDisk Corporation ("SanDisk") has filed a response to the instant administrative motion or to the supplemental showing made by plaintiff.1

3. To the extent plaintiff's administrative motion seeks leave to file under seal portions of Exhibit 40, specifically, the portions identified in ¶ 5 of its supplemental declaration, filed August 19, 2016, the motion is hereby GRANTED, plaintiff having shown such portions are properly filed under seal.

Plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no earlier than four days and no later than ten days from the date of this order, a redacted version of Exhibit 40, specifically, a version in which only the material identified in ¶ 5 of its supplemental declaration is redacted therefrom. See Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. According to plaintiff, Exhibit 40 includes references to material designated confidential by defendant, as well as to material designated confidential by SanDisk.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer